alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-3093 

GREGORY STOVALL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Respondent. 

 José L. Ongay, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for petitioner. 

Bryant G. Snee, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC argued for respondent. On the 

brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, 

Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director, and Allison Kidd-Miller, Trial Attorney. 

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2007-3093 

GREGORY STOVALL 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

 Respondent. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

in CASE NO(S). PH0752040250-I-4 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

 PROST, Circuit Judge) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED: December 6, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RACHEL M. BORDER, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-379 

v. Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATON 

 Plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney fees and costs 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the total 

amount of $5,733.01 and asked that the amount be paid to her 

attorneys. Doc. No. 23. Thereafter, the parties filed a stipulation 

in which they agreed to a total award under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act in the amount of $ 5,000.00. Stipulation for Award of 

Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 

Doc. No. 24. The parties also agreed that, although the award belongs 

to plaintiff, the award would be directed to her counsel should the 

parties verify that plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to 

offset. Id. 

 In light of the parties’ stipulation, it is RECOMMENDED that 

plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney fees and costs, Doc. No. 

23, be GRANTED in part. It is SPECFICALLY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff 

be awarded an attorney fee, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access 

Case: 2:12-cv-00379-ALM-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 10/31/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412, in the total amount of $5,000.00. 

 It is understood that, if plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt to 

the United States that is subject to offset, the Commissioner will 

direct that the award be made payable to plaintiff’s attorneys. 

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report 

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file 

and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part 

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections 

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy 

thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to 

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to 

de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the 

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

October 31, 2013 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case: 2:12-cv-00379-ALM-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 10/31/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:12-cv-00033-JLG-NMK Doc #: 22 Filed: 02/25/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T10:51:26-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 46885.

#### Protest 783367-G of M. Zwiebel (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40493 the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was sustained.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**302 CERTIFICATION**

I,Luca D’Agnese certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Enersis Chile S.A.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 29, 2016
Table 1 - SCR annual cost per NREL and ES

NREL implicit costs of SCR

Discount FCR% shareLow fixed costHigh fixed costLow annual cost SRP 9.8%11.59% 21.7% $100.901 $118.457 $11.69 LADWP 6.0% 8.72% 21.2% $98.576 $115.727 $8.59 APS 8.3%10.41% 14.0% $65.097 $76.424 $6.78 NVE 8.3%10.41% 11.3% $52.543 $61.685 $5.47 TEP 8.0%10.19% 7.5% $34.874 $40.941 $3.55 BOR 5.0% 8.02% 24.3% $112.990 $132.650 $9.07 Total 100.0% $464.980 $545.883 $45.15
NREL: pp. 19, 59 p. 14 p. 47 p. 47 pp. 19, 61 O&M costs (p. 47) $11.95 $11.95 Total cost (p. 111) $57.10

ES implicit costs of SCR (pp. 21-22) Annual

Discount FCR% shareInflation rate2012 cap. cost2018 cap. cost SRP 7.0% 7.0% 21.7% 3.0% $107.720 $124.78 LADWP 7.0% 7.0% 21.2% 3.0% $105.238 $121.91 APS 7.0% 14.9% 14.0% 3.0% $69.497 $80.50 NVE 7.0% 14.9% 11.3% 3.0% $56.094 $64.98 TEP 7.0% 14.9% 7.5% 3.0% $37.230 $43.13 BOR 7.0% 6.5% 24.3% 3.0% $120.627 $139.73 Total 100.0% $496.406 $575.026 2012 capital costs op. exp.Retrofitcap. cost to retrofit date Unit 1 $137.527 $3.982 2017 $159.431 Unit 2 $188.585 $3.982 2016 $212.254 Unit 3 $170.294 $3.982 2018 $203.340High annual cost

$13.72 $10.09 $7.96 $6.42 $4.17 $10.64 $53.01 pp. 19, 61 $16.71 $69.72

2018 annual capital cost 2018 oper. exp.2018 total annual cost2012 total annual cost

$8.735 $3.10 $11.830 $10.133 $8.533 $3.02 $11.557 $9.899 $11.995 $2.00 $13.992 $12.027 $9.682 $1.61 $11.294 $9.708 $6.426 $1.07 $7.496 $6.443 $9.083 $3.47 $12.549 $10.744 $54.453 $14.264 $68.717 **$58.954**
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BERNARD W. REDD, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 477, 42 CMR 79

No. 22,592

May 28, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Thomas R. Maher,*and *Captain William W. Rittenhouse*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Éryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Glenn R. Bonard*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

Tried and convicted of disrespect, willful disobedience (two specifications) , and lifting up a weapon against his superior officer, in violation of Articles 89 and 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 889 and 890, the appellant received a bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for three years, and reduction to the grade of Private E-l. Redd now asserts that he was prejudiced by the law officer’s failure to limit the court’s consideration on sentence of uncharged misconduct related to a disobedience of which the appellant was here found guilty.

Each of the offenses set out above occurred before January 1, 1969, the operative date of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969. Under these circumstances, a limiting instruction is required, although the case was heard after the January date. United States v Worley, 19 USCMA 444, 42 CMR 46 (1970); United States v Flowers, 19 USCMA 473, 42 CMR 75 (1970); United States v Mallard, 19 USCMA 457, 42 CMR 59 (1970) ; and United States v March, 19 USCMA *478476, 42 CMR 78 (1970). Considering the number and character of the charged offenses, the possible maximum sentence, and that imposed and approved, we are satisfied that Redd was not harmed by this instructional omission. United States v Flowers, supra. We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Judge Ferguson concurs in the result.
No. 64321.

protests 58/2126 and 58/25519 (Seattle).

#### Close and Stewart *v.*United States,

*515Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower*& *Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Angela
D. Toppi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Trans-Lux
Corporation (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge
that:

    (1) The Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

    This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Registrant or
the certifying officer.



                                        /s/ Angela D. Toppi
                                        -------------------------------------
Date:  May 20, 2010                     Angela D. Toppi
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
SERVED: DECEMBER 30, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MESA AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0721 

~-, 

.;;.;;.I 

._,_, f,} ' 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011SW070001) was received by the 

Office of Hearings on December 19, 2013, and has been assigned to the undersigned. On 

December 20, 2013, Complainant's Counsel served a Withdrawal of Complaint, stating that the 

parties had reached a settlement and withdrawing its complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the FAA Hearing Docket a copy of any compromise 

order or final order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 

c- ; 

Ro · e A. Yoder / .. ...-

Chief Administrative Law:Judge 

i_ ___ .. 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Annjenet Chennault, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW -7E4, AC 

F ede:ral Aviation Administration 

2601' Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5071 

FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 

Briai:t S. Gillman, Respondent's Counsel 

Exec. VP & General Counsel, Mesa Air Group 

410 N. 44th Street, Suite 700 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

TEL: 602-685-4000 

FAJ{: 602-685-4350 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

F AJ{: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-.2013-0721 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
Case: 2:12-cv-00844-EAS-TPK Doc #: 23 Filed: 09/18/13 Page: 1 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00844-EAS-TPK Doc #: 23 Filed: 09/18/13 Page: 2 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00844-EAS-TPK Doc #: 23 Filed: 09/18/13 Page: 3 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T18:29:58-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
110 STAT. 3008 PUBLIC LAW 104–207—SEPT. 30, 1996

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 197:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 32 (1996):

Sept. 30, Presidential statement.

Æ

Public Law 104–207

104th Congress

Joint Resolution

Waiving certain enrollment requirements with respect to any bill or joint resolution

of the One Hundred Fourth Congress making general or continuing appropriations

for fiscal year 1997.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR PARCHMENT PRINTING.

(a) WAIVER.—The provisions of sections 106 and 107 of title

1, United States Code, are waived with respect to the printing

(on parchment or otherwise) of the enrollment of any appropriation

measure of the One Hundred Fourth Congress presented to the

President after the enactment of this joint resolution.

(b) CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT BY COMMITTEE ON HOUSE

OVERSIGHT.—The enrollment of any such measure shall be in such

form as the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives certifies to be a true enrollment.

SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION MEASURE DEFINED.

For purposes of this joint resolution, the term ‘‘appropriation

measure’’ means a bill or joint resolution that includes provisions

making general or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 1997.

Approved September 30, 1996.

1 USC 106 note.

1 USC 106 note.

Sept. 30, 1996

[H.J. Res. 197]
# C_2008176EN.01000101.xml

| 11.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.4985 — BHP Billiton/Rio Tinto)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 176/01)

On 4 June 2008, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference COMP/M.4985 — BHP Billiton/Rio Tinto, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1000 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1000 Brussels

---
Order entered August 14 , 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00326

- CR

LARRY BERRING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court C ause No. F12

- 55634

- I



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.

On August 9, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the

reporter’s record had not been filed. On August 13, 2013, we received the reporter’s record.

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the August 9, 2013 order.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
No. 49339.

#### Protests 768224-G, etc., of S. Alioto *&*Sons et al. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstracts.40880 and 41794 cheese similar to the Provolone cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) was held dutiable upon the basis of the net weight of the cheese as returned by the United States weigher, not including the weight of the strings, less 2)4 percent for inedible coverings.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7435

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR OUTLAW, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Aceyon Rogers,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (4:00-cr-70114-JLK-1)

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 22, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Alan Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Alan Outlaw appeals the district court’s order 

reducing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). 

Outlaw claims that the district court erred in its reduction 

calculation and in denying him a hearing. We find no such 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

United States v. Outlaw, No. 4:00-cr-70114-JLK-1 (W.D. Va. Sept. 

20, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
(Reap. Dec. 8936)

Entry No. 15812, etc.

#### Castelazo & Associates *v.*United States

(Decided July 23, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Dan Erik Hedin*of counsel) for the plantiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mollie Strum,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement involve the proper value of certain cutlery, entered at the port of Los Angeles. The merchandise in question was appraised at values higher than those at which entered.

At the trial, the cases were submitted on the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> Mr. Hedin: * * * we offer to stipulate with the Government as to the merchandise covered by the invoices in the above cases, the price at which such *599or similar merchandise was freely offered to all'purchasers in the principal market and in the ordinary course of trade was the appraised unit values as shown on the invoices in red ink, less 33 and *}i*per cent, plus 4 per cent, plus packing and that there was no export value, which was higher.

> Miss Stetjm: * * * the Government so stipulates.

On the agreed facts, I find foreign value, section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised unit values, as invoiced, less 33 *%*per centum plus 4 per centum, plus packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
A03A0768.

#### TRAMMEL v. BRYANT.

(580 SE2d 661)

Smith, Chief Judge.

Melanie Trammel appeals from the trial court’s order granting a writ of possession to George Bryant. No transcript of the proceedings below appears in the record, and it is well settled that when no transcript is included in the record on appeal, all arguments “requiring a consideration of evidence must be affirmed.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Southerland v. Oxford Group,*162 Ga. App. 213 (290 SE2d 556) (1982). Therefore, to the extent that Trammel’s contentions require a consideration of evidence, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Furthermore, Trammel has failed to provide any legitimate basis of appeal with respect to her three enumerations of error. No reasonable grounds exist for appeal, and it is clear that this appeal was taken solely for the purposes of delaying Bryant’s recovery of the property and rent. For this reason, we impose a $1,000 penalty for frivolous appeal in favor of Bryant against Trammel and her attor*699ney under Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b). See *Johnson v. Nelson-Rives Realty,*245 Ga. App. 638, 639 (538 SE2d 536) (2000).

Decided April 2, 2003.

*Boykin Edwards, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Burroughs & Keene, Christopher S. Jones,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.*